Competition and consumer policy in digital markets

Executive summary

Digital markets have fundamentally reshaped the relationship between competition and consumer policy, underscoring the growing importance of conducting an integrated analysis.1 Digital platforms now structure consumer interactions through sophisticated data-driven and algorithmic mechanisms, from personalised pricing and recommendation systems to interface design, that strongly influence both consumer behaviour and market dynamics. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) further embed these mechanisms into core functions such as pricing, ranking and demand forecasting, while the emergence of agentic AI, systems capable of acting autonomously on behalf of humans, raises new questions about transparency, intermediation and consumer autonomy. At the same time, the rapid deployment and systemic impact of these practices have encouraged in some jurisdictions the emergence of ex-ante regulatory frameworks that integrate competition and consumer objectives, complementing the role of traditional ex-post tools.

Competition policy and consumer policy – diverging approaches and goals?

Competition policy aims to preserve effective market structures and rivalry, focussing primarily on supply-side market failures arising from market power. Consumer policy directly targets individuals, protecting them from misleading, fraudulent or unfair commercial practices. Both frameworks share a common goal of safeguarding consumer welfare, with transparency of information recognised as a central point of convergence.

The complementarity between the two policies is visible particularly in digital markets, with some overlapping objectives. Robust consumer protection and empowerment enable consumers to make informed choices online, thereby supporting competition and innovation. Conversely, greater competition in digital markets incentivises better business practices, further strengthening consumer empowerment and contributing to higher consumer welfare. These complementarities do not, however, eliminate the possibility of tension between the two policy areas in particular cases. One example is stronger product-safety obligations on online marketplaces that could potentially raise barriers to entry for smaller firms due to increased compliance costs.

Consumer agency refers to the meaningful ability of individuals to understand alternatives, make informed choices and act on their preferences, including switching providers when appropriate. Several jurisdictions have developed institutional mechanisms to structure the relationship between competition and consumer policy, from dual-mandate authorities and co-operation protocols to dedicated digital co-ordination bodies. Instruments, such as joint market studies and working groups, have proven effective entry points for cross-policy collaboration. Enforcement, however, largely continues on separate tracks, with authorities choosing the most appropriate framework or proceeding in parallel based on legal thresholds and available remedies. This strategic decision on how to pursue a conduct leaves some room for an integrated perspective based on consumer agency considerations, which is particularly relevant in digital markets, where practices often produce both distortions of consumer choices and effects on competitive dynamics, making cross‑regime collaboration increasingly essential.

The analysis of specific practices that sit at the intersection of the two regimes, where conduct in digital markets may simultaneously raise concerns under competition and consumer law, shows a growing overlap between the two frameworks, which suggests that addressing digital market conducts in a coherent and effective way may require closer co-ordination between the two policy domains. This overlap offers multiple enforcement routes to regulators, and aspects such as the complexity of the assessment, the legal thresholds, timing and resources, and availability of remedial action may influence the decision to pursue a case under one enforcement route or the other.

Current and prospective joint approaches: Bridging the two policy areas

In some circumstances, neither framework alone is sufficient to capture the full implications of digital market conduct. A more integrated perspective supported by structured inter-institutional co-operation can help authorities address both the structural and behavioural dimensions of digital markets more effectively.

Looking ahead, the paper proposes ways to integrate consumer agency more systematically into both enforcement frameworks and into remedy design and monitoring, as combining competition law's structural tools with consumer protection's conduct insights can prevent remedies that appear structurally sound but prove ineffective in practice. This includes using consumer agency as a meaningful parameter in enforcement frameworks, recognising autonomy as a condition that can influence how markets function and how existing legal standards are applied. While aspects of consumer agency are already implicitly reflected in existing assessments, especially through the analysis of consumer behaviour, they remain unsystematised and not explicitly framed as a distinct analytical parameter. Considerations on consumer agency may also be extended to the design of remedies. The emergence of agentic AI further underscores the need for co‑ordinated policy responses, raising questions about transparency and bias.

Note

← 1.  This paper was prepared by Carolina Alessi and Aura García Pabón from the OECD Competition Division. The paper benefited from comments by Ori Schwartz, Antonio Capobianco, Ania Thiemann and Alessandra Tonazzi from the OECD Competition Division and by Brigitte Acoca, Nicholas McSpedden-Brown and Yash Patel from the OECD Consumer Policy Unit. It was prepared for the discussion on “Competition and Consumer Policy in Digital Markets” taking place at the 149th meeting of the Competition Committee.